Hi Rich,

First let me say that I have been back through the thread regarding Service Packs and there is no response from Mr. Green on my final message asking that *ALL* VFP maintenance, of whatever kind, be included in Service Packs.

You know, we are said to number around a half million VFP licenses. That's a fair chunk of dough for MS, even if VB is a monstrous chunk by comparison.

You suggest that this "monitoring" is done on a "best efforts" and "when we can" basis. I don't know if that is correct, but I never understood it to be that way.
As usual, though, I have to wonder why MS hasn't cared to describe their actual "monitoring" practises as a result of this thread and mine/your comments.

If it truly is best efforts then I have to believe that many people would be surprised!

Yes, we in fact have lots of way to communicate to MS. There is precious little coming from MS. On the other hand they have lots of surrogates who take on that job for them, and I guess they are happy with that. I'm not, because that way all I get is a best GUESS as to what MS is really up to and there is a huge chance that it is way off the mark.

Finally, you attribute far too much power to one little voice. And if you fear that MS might just discontinue "monitoring" because they get a little constructive criticism then there is a far bigger problem here than we can imagine.

regards,

Jim N


>Easy, Jim, easy.
>
>>What good does this (so called) monitoring really do [...]
>
>What good it does is that sometimes they check here and see concerns people have. Just because it's not the only way of contacting them doesn't make it useless. Niether does the possibility that human beings scanning through 300-400 messages a day may miss some that you think are important.
>
>>>And, the monitoring they do here does not mean they read every message.
>>Then they really shouldn't say, and nor should you or anyone else, that they "monitor" the UT or other NewsGroups!
>
>Are you arguing semantics, here? On occasion (frequently), they come here and scan through the messages, looking for things which may be indications of problems they should be addressing. That fits my definition of monitoring pretty well.
>
>>>They look for posting from different people, for example, MVPs and potential MVPs.
>>If you know this for a fact, then it truly is disappointing and useless! Most postings by MVPs are answers to problems or concerns! [...]
>
>a) he didn't say that's the only criteria which sets their "red flags" flying. It was an example.
>b) disappointing to you doesn't necessarily mean useless to anyone else, and I would hope it doesn't mean it to you, either.
>
>>>Michel also sends them a report that summarizes postings. If you want to make sure Robert gets something...send it to Robert.
>I believe this (in the message you were replying to) answers one of the specific complaints you made in your reply.
>
>>Just like the discussion of early last week where several of us told Mr. Green that we felt strongly that any Service Release should have *ALL* components affecting the delivered VFP and not just some sub-set. He got it, and we know that for sure. Did I miss his response??
>
>I guess you did, if you think he didn't respond. I saw him respond to that thread.
>
>Anyway, just because a means to communicate with the MS guys isn't perfect, I don't think it makes sense to say it's useless. It's a service they're offering out of the goodness of their hearts in their "spare" time, and I'd rather you didn't yell at them for doing it. I personally don't want them to decide they should stop looking here at all, because they'll just be getting yelled at.
>
>Respectfully,
>Rich.